Censored for stating facts - guardian olympics blog

No, the rules are specific that they apply to XY athletes only and not XX athletes.

@Avocadowoman
This is incredibly helpful. Can't say I understand it, but will do some research and try to!
What I'm keen to understand though is, is it possible to meet this criteria and be subject to the testosterone rules and NOT have a Y chromosome?

@TerfTerf

A man with Klinefelters would 'look' like a man, with male genitalia, so would not end up in the position that these Namibian athletes are in. In addition, Klinefelters syndrome often presents with poor muscle development and coordination, and sometimes lower than average testosterone levels. Unlikely to make elite athletes!

Okay, but to be fair the Namibian athletes (unlike Semenya) do not look like men, although I've obviously only seen them with their clothes on!

Sorry - couldn't get second link to work but you can find it from the first one.

This is the easy read version of the DSD regulations:
www.worldathletics.org/news/press-release/questions-answers-iaaf-female-eligibility-reg

And this is the actual one:
[Broken link removed by MNHQ ]

(a) A Relevant Athlete is an athlete who meets each of the following three criteria:
(i) she has one of the following DSDs:
(A) 5α-reductase type 2 deficiency;
(B) partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (PAIS);
(C) 17β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 3 (17β- HSD3) deficiency;
(D) ovotesticular DSD; or
(E) any other genetic disorder involving disordered gonadal steroidogenesis;

and
(ii) as a result, she has circulating testosterone levels in blood of five (5) nmol/L or
above;

and
(iii) she has sufficient androgen sensitivity for those levels of testosterone to have a
material androgenising effect.

All of the detail that I could find on a quick google suggested that these were XY (as opposed to XXY) DSDs. Happy to be corrected though.

There is a limited list of DSDs that are covered by the current rules. I may be wrong, but I believe all of those are associated with 46XY chromosomes. Largely because they're the common ones causing problems. The other disorders involving significant chromosome variations are rarer, and more likely to be having a health impact that means you're unlikely to be in competitive sport.

In principle, yes, it's the presence of the Y chromosome, or more specifically the SRY gene, that's the issue. That's what they're working from, but the legal challenges have forced them to work in a piecemeal fashion - particular DSDs, and particular events.

@SCMocha
Well, maybe it's not more likely, I'm not sure.
Still, the point is, all we know for certain is they must have a Y chromosome to be caught by the testosterone rules, and so we should stick to what we know for certain in all debates. Ultimately, I'm not saying it matters: Y chromosome = no place in women's sports.

(sorry 47 xxy)

Why is that more likely? If they were 46 xxy, then they would most likely look male and the question wouldn't arise, unless they also had some degree of androgen insensitivity, but that would be a very rare combination, surely?

Totally agree with this thread and the fact if you've got a Y chromosome you should never be allowed to compete in women's sports, but.....
you've said that the Namibians have XY chromosomes, but we don't know that. We know they must have a Y chromosome, but it's more likely (although not confirmed), they have XXY, rather than XY. That's still means they are men, have advantages and should not be allowed, because the presence or absence of the Y chromosome that denotes sex. (eg see this from the NHS: www.nhs.uk/conditions/klinefelters-syndrome/). Next time, just stick to fact they have Y chromosome, rather than speculating on what else there is maybe??

However my last comment was on a trans issue and was correcting another commentator who churned out the old ‘5%of people are intersex’ fallacy - politely explaining what DSD means and linking to a published scientific journal that totally refuted that.

Well, if you’re going to cheat by pointing out facts and giving science-journal references …

I’d expect nothing more from the Guardian- they are not a newspaper just an ideological mouthpiece. I avoid at all costs and even find the recipes better in the telegraph (don’t subscribe just get recipes)

However I wonder if the moderating is outsourced on lots of these sites.

Amusingly, I was permanently banned from the Unherd - which is supposed to be a bastion of free speech and alternative viewpoints. I have no idea why as I could not get a reply from their moderator despite requesting an explanation several times and despite always being polite.

However my last comment was on a trans issue and was correcting another commentator who churned out the old ‘5%of people are intersex’ fallacy - politely explaining what DSD means and linking to a published scientific journal that totally refuted that. Coincidence?

You’re right, MiddlesexGirl. I should have quoted the screenshot that HermioneKipper posted at 19.02. A comment in the Guardian that was allowed to stand while Hermione’s factual comments were deleted.

Someone called sgwnmr says it’s a “lie” that male puberty provides huge advantages. And that seems to be fine by the Guardian. For good measure, sgwnmr adds that separating women’s sports from men’s is “misogynistic”.

That's not what Seb Coe is saying. He is arguing that they were right to bar athletes with DSDs from the longer events because the 200m shows that the athlete with a DSD was getting stronger in the later stages of the race so the effect of the testosterone would be more marked in a longer race.
He's not said that men aren't faster and in case this article is about athletes with DSDs.
He is saying that they need to look at other events too. What more can the man say without losing his job?

So it’s a lie that men are, on average, faster and stronger than women?

You can’t argue with that level of wilful stupidity.

Seb Coe is definitely not down the rabbit hole. A little later in the same piece:
"Coe also suggested that different classifications might yet come into sport in the future – including an “open” category for almost everyone and a restricted “biological female”. “I don’t think that’s where most of my council are at the moment,” he said. “But this is a debate at the moment. I’ve heard coaches and people who are interested in the sport, and more broadly from the sport, have discussed that.”"
www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/aug/04/sebastian-coe-claims-chrstine-mboma-tokyo-olympics-200m-silver-medal-shows-testosterone-rules-are-working
He knows. He just has to be careful.

But homophobia for sure is live and kicking where I live

People are scared, and they also feel out of their depths, or they don't know enough to see the patterns, like deletions in comments sections or media outlets ignoring stories.

So it looks like a thing of minor concern that some over-react to, or it looks like a whole lot of awful they don't understand.

Jeez hermione. That’s shite

Just get off Facebook. Where the whinies are. Who cares what they think

I can’t respect any person who doesn’t protect girls and women over men

Simple as that

No one ever says that this is a classist movement. For sure it is.

Twaw I kinda think is for the privileged.

I know pick. I live in Scotland. Totally captured.

But keep going is all I can say. I won’t lye down and be walked over.

So I keep going